Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[RTTOOL]

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It
will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am. It will be in Concord, NH in
Representatives Hall, the main Capital Hall.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847. Your
attendance is needed to show the Senate that HB847 is not right for NH.
Please visit http://www.opposehb847.com
for information on why its not right for NH and read the testimonials of
others like you.

Things you can do until then:
1. Call the Senators
2. Write the Senators
3. Plan to attend the hearing!!!
4. And pass the word to your friends and businesses to voice their
opinion!!!!

Thank you,
Custie

John Gallus
292 Prospect Street
Berlin, NH 03570-2137
(H) (603)752-1066
(O) (603)271-3077

Deborah Reynolds
5 Chaddarin Lane
Plymouth, NH 03264
(O) (603)271-3569

Joseph Kenney
PO Box 201
Union, NH 03887-0201
(H) (603)473-2569
(O) (603)271-3073

Kathleen Sgambati
25 Pine Street
Tilton, NH 03276
(H) (603)286-8931
(O) (603)271-3074

Peter Burling
20 Lang Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4209
(O) (603)271-2642

Jacalyn Cilley
2 Oak Hill Road
Barrington, NH 03825
(H) (603)664-5597
(O) (603)271-3045

Harold Janeway
225 Tyler Road
Webster, NH 03303
(O) (603)271-3041

Bob Odell
PO Box 23
Lempster, NH 03605-0023
(O) (603)271-6733

Sheila Roberge
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, NH 03110-4816
(H) (603)472-8391
(O) None Specified

Molly Kelly
89 Colonial Drive
Keene, NH 03431
(H) (603)352-5605
(O) (603)271-7803

Peter Bragdon
P.O. Box 307
Milford, NH 03055 (H)
(603)673-7135
(O) (603)271-2675

David Gottesman
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, NH 03063-1308
(H) (603)889-4442
(O) (603)271-4152

Joseph Foster
9 Keats Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2509
(H) (603)891-0307
(O) (603)271-2111

Robert Clegg
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, NH 03051-5120
(O) (603)271-8630

Sylvia Larsen
23 Kensington Road
Concord, NH 03301
(H) (603)225-6130
(O) (603)271-2111

Theodore Gatsas
20 Market St
PO Box 6655
Manchester, NH 03104-6052
(H) (603)623-0220
(O) (603)271-8567

John Barnes
PO Box 362
Raymond, NH 03077-3062
(H) (603)895-9352
(O) (603)271-6931

Betsi DeVries
14 Old Orchard Way
Manchester, NH 03103
(H) (603)647-0117
(O) (603)271-2104

Robert Letourneau
30 South Avenue
Derry, NH 03038
(O) (603)271-8631

Lou D'Allesandro
332 St. James Avenue
Manchester, NH 03102-4950
(H) (603)669-3494
(O) (603)271-2600

Iris Estabrook
8 Burnham Avenue
Durham, NH 03824-3011
(H) (603)868-5524
(O) (603)271-3042

Michael Downing
7 Darryl Lane
Salem, NH 03079
(H) (603)893-5442
(O) (603)271-2674

Margaret Hassan
48 Court Street
Exeter, NH 03833-2728
(H) (603)772-4187
(O) (603)271-4153

Martha Fuller Clark
152 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306
(O) (603)271-6933


http://www.opposehb847.com

Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our
rights. The more letters and phones the the bigger the impact.

[Bear Islander]

You can also visit www.winnfabs.com

[RTTOOL]

Starting June 1st.. There Will Be A Two Hr.tour A New 50ft. Tug Boat.
Around Bear Island And Selective Places On Bear Island. So How
Many More Boat Want To Join The Fun...

See You All There.....

[Islander]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

Starting June 1st.. There Will Be A Two Hr.tour A New 50ft. Tug Boat.
Around Bear Island And Selective Places On Bear Island. So How
Many More Boat Want To Join The Fun...

See You All There.....

Good Post

I know two Senators that read this forum.

[ApS]

Yup, Islander...Even on shore, the opponents are frequently their own worst enemy.

However, I hope opponents of HB-847 wave Director Barrett's "NHMP Survey" as proof that Senate approval of the bill is unnecessary.

Why?

Because then the proponents can wave a copy of the Union Leader that has Director Barrett announcing his "temporary speed limit" before conducting the Survey!

[Islander]

APS

Its great that so many opponents are going to the hearing despite the vote being a done deal. 15 Senators have already declared their support for HB847 And a majority either voted for speed limits already or used it as a campaign promise.

See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Islander

APS

Its great that so many opponents are going to the hearing despite the vote being a done deal. 15 Senators have already declared their support for HB847 And a majority either voted for speed limits already or used it as a campaign promise.

See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello!

As Algore and John Kerry found out, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

If two Senators read this board then they know that RTTOOL with TWO POSTs on this board does not represent the vast majority of the anti-boat ban posters here. We will argue how misguided this law is and how the proponents have unsavory motives, but we will not stoop to intimidation or childish stunts. If needed, we will use the ballot box to repair the wrongs.

[tis]

Let's just hope the house members have some common sense and realize a speed limit is just another law that isn't going to make any difference. The people who are careful will still be careful, the people who aren't still won't be.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by tis

Let's just hope the house members have some common sense and realize a speed limit is just another law that isn't going to make any difference. The people who are careful will still be careful, the people who aren't still won't be.

The House members voted 236 to 111 in favor of the speed limit bill HB847. I assume you are talking about the Senate.

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.

[tis]

Sorry, BI, you are right. I am getting the shoreland protection act and this one confused. This one is awaiting the senate, the sps is awaiting the house. I still haven't heard how the house voted on the sps on Wed.

People that don't live on or boat on the lake, really don't care it there is a speed limit or not. Why should they?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.

Let's hope the senators also realize that the survey used to educate the house and senate was conducted after an extensive and expensive marketing campaign, to "teach" the voters how they should answer the questions. It was a scientific survey - with guaranteed results. There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey, which is why those opposed to a speed limit claim that it is a "purchased" law. Which restriction on boater's rights will be bought next?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The House members voted 236 to 111 in favor of the speed limit bill HB847. I assume you are talking about the Senate.

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.

How many of those 9% were active boaters who use the lake?
If they wanted to do a survey, it should have been done amongst people who have a vested interest.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How many of those 9% were active boaters who use the lake?
If they wanted to do a survey, it should have been done amongst people who have a vested interest.

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Between Voters, and Boaters!!! I challenge you to poll registered Boaters!
The numbers we heard today were 600 people in the Manchester area were polled. 78% allegedly said they would support a speed limit. So what is that? 450 voters from Manchester. Ok how many were Boaters????? Exactly probably not many! I would bet I could get 450 voters to agree to ban Bihydrogen monoxide!!!

[wifi]

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still

[Bear Islander]

So was anybody at the hearing? How did things go?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!

[Islander]

My take was pretty much the exact opposite.

I will wait for the vote.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!

You were sooooo Right!

[EricP]

There was a very good turnout, quite impressive IMHO.
Those opposed outnumbered those for. I base this on the volume of people sporting the NO HB847 stickers hended out. There were even quite a few opposed who didn't have one on. I myself m opposed to HB847.

I will give the chairman and the commitee kudos for changing up the testimony so basically we heard from alternating points of view throughout the morning. This was my first ever hearing so I have no clue if that's normal, but the chairman made it a point to let us know that;s his preferred style.

The reigning theme from supporters is simple: fear, nothing else but fear mongering, period. That's all I heard from them over and over. One woman even went as far as to spell it out. "Formula Boats". She stated she personally taught 50 people how to water ski and wouldn't take a new skier out anymore. Let's be real here, Monday through Thursday, Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday mornings are all good times to teach some to ski, there are just times when there are a lot of boats on the lake and maybe not a good time to teach someone. This has nothing to do with speed, it's simple math. This is not your father's or grandfather's lake. What ws the US population when your father and grandfathers roamed he lake and what is the US population now? Huge differences. So with more people living then it stands to reason more boats are owned and therefore more boats show up to enjoy the lake. This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.

I heard many more compelling reasons to not impose a speed limit than for. The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.

I was very happy to hear several people point out that while Lake George has a speed limit it does not have the 150' safe passaage rule. That laone means we're not comparing apples to apples.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe. Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.

I heard a couple proponents repeatedly use the term excessive speed, but not speeding. I think this says a lot to the opposition. It's not speeding, but excessive speed they keep talking about. Excessive speed can be defined as 10 MPH when within 150' of anything else. That's speeding, and I bet that happens a zillion times more than boats traveling over 45 MPH. I have had close calls on my PWCs at slow speeds and none with boats at high speeds. All were 150' infractions. I am always watching everything around me, not because of fear, but because I just don't want to get hurt.

I heard 2 people speak to the 600 person survey. I would want to know more about the sampling. How many of those 600 boat on Winni and how many boat on really small lakes? How many don't boat at all? Exactly what was aksed and how was the question asked? For example" "Excuse me sir, would you be in favor of a speed limit on NH lakes knowing that people are dying ev ery day in high speed accidents on our waters?" or "Do you think we need speed limits on NH lakes?". I personally dismiss this so called survey. I don't believe it to be a fair representation of Winni boaters, which is what this bill is about.

I can't offer an opinion as to how I think it went. I know they listened to all testimonials, asked reasonable questions, and took notes and so in that respect it was a good hearing. Noone got upset, there was no yelling or fighting. I'm glad I went and showed my opposition to the bill and am thankful to all those who were opposed and offered lots of reasons why we don't need the bill passed.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by EricP

. . . This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.

Congestion is certainly a factor. But it is not the only factor. My best friend and I have only kayaked on Winni during the week – yet we have had close calls with high-speed boats in the middle of the week – when congestion was not a factor at all.

The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.

The 150 foot rule hasn’t protected me from people who were going faster than their ability. Boats have violated my 150 foot zone just because they were going too fast.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe.

Winni is not all that big. It’s only 20 miles long – and there’s only about 2 square miles of the entire lake where you can be more than a mile from a shoreline. The only reason that it is not safe for me is because there are boats that are traveling too fast. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water. I have safely kayaked out in the middle of Squam on the busiest weekends of the summer – because it has a speed limit.

Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.

How many times do I have to explain this?

Why don’t you people stick to what you know?

A sea kayak is long and narrow. My kayak is only 22 inches wide! I control it with thigh braces . . . and by leaning (which is called “putting it on edge”). Paddling a sea kayak is a constant balancing act.
A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weathervane.

My kayak is very visible – its upper hull is bright red and its lower hull is white. My friend’s kayak it bright yellow. My paddle blades are bright orange and my PFD is red.

We are extremely visible!

Yet some high speed boats have still violated our 150 foot zone – in the middle of a sunny afternoon – because they were going too fast and they didn’t see us in time. That is the problem.

In decent visibility I can spot most other kayaks up to a mile away – but I’m only going about 5 mph.

I bought an expensive sea kayak because I wanted a kayak that was safe to use out on large lakes and on coastal waters - my kayak was designed expecially for this. I carry safety equipment with me and wear the proper clothing for the water temperature. I have taken seminars on advanced paddling and on coastal navigation. I have done everything possible to ensure my safety.

I'm "screaming" because, no matter how skilled I am, or how prepared I am, or how visible my kayak and I are . . . high speed boaters have endangered me on Winni - because they were going too fast!

This is not about me being unsafe or doing unsafe things - this is about high speed boat operators who will not slow down to a safe speed without the state enacting a speed limit.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by wifi

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still

I googled dihydrogen monoxide, came up as a nasty mix!!! Yikes!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

It would depend on the law being proposed. For example, if the law was for regulating large trucks on restricted access highways, then I would want to poll the people who actually use those highways. I think the highway users opinion should carry more weight than the opinion of one who never uses the highway.

My opinion is that polling the most interested group is the way to go. Sure, all citizens opinions matter. As stated above, the users opinion should carry more weight than a non-user.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

I don't necessarily agree. Laws regulating large trucks would potentially affect everyone on the road depending on the type of law. Casino gambling as well would affect all as it can change many things to do with our society.

Some voter in Manchester who has never been on a boat on Winnipesaukee and never will , and who have no knowledge of boating really is not an important opinion in my view. Regulating boating laws on Winnipesaukee has a much tighter circle of effect.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

Once again a spin that dizzies up the mind. Talk about comparing apples to MANGOS for gods sake. Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? This a recreational issue. I could care less what speed they travel on "xyz lake" in Massachusetts. Why should I tell those people how to use the lake they frequent? Why? Is it my civic duty to regulate their activities?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? ...

They "should" have a say because it's their lake. It is their responsibility and their property. In fact they have the final say.

However I think polls, especially exit polls, are used to much in our society. I have quoted this poll to counter the idea that the "people" don't want HB847. I will admit it would be difficult not to use a poll that so clearly supports your argument.

The weakness of this poll is not that many will not have boated on Winnipesaukee. It's the inadvisability of relying on the opinion of people that know very little about about the details and history of the topic.

[Lakegeezer]

NH citizens that are lake users should have a stronger say on lake issues than the general NH population, because they have more knowledge of reality. The NH general population should get involved with issues such as water quality and economic issues, but should stay away from micromanagement of how to drive a boat - especially since the rules already define safe boating.

My big problem with the polls is that they can (and have been) impacted by a PR campaign. The image that the WinnFabs have been promoting is a lake that is out of control. It has been effective in swaying opinion, and no doubt impacting the local economy. On most of the lake, most of the time, it is far from true.

[hazelnut]

APS the majority of boaters never read up or were even aware of such a temporary limit. If you want to wave that as evidence that skewed the results please go for it. It actually helps the cause because you are concurring that the data itself was correct. That being the case good luck proving a newspaper article was responsible for making thousands of boaters instantly compliant with temporary speed laws. Hilarious

[fatlazyless]

Just seeing some of the smaller boats like a kayak can be difficult as they are low in the water and tend to blend into the waves.The 150' distance is not enough of a safety cushion for boaters at speeds above 45mph. Small boaters including many summer campers as well as kayakers and slow-trolling fishermen will all have a much safer boating experience with a 45/25mph speed limit.

With the high price of gasoline plus the physical exercise benefits, probably more people will be chosing to boat on the Big Lake in their relatively inexpensive and easy-to-use kayaks.

Going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. Is it really necessary to be boating at speeds above 45? On Route 93, the speed limit is 65, with conditions permitting. On Lake Winnipesaukee, a 45mph speed limit will make it a safer lake for all boaters.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On Lake Winnipesaukee, a 45mph speed limit will make it a safer lake for all boaters.

Except the ones who nod off due to boredom

[ApS]

Originally Posted by tis

"...People that don't live on or boat on the lake, really don't care it there is a speed limit or not. Why should they...?

My folks live ½-mile from the lake in Wolfeboro. They want speed limits—maybe to protect their kids, do you suppose?

Originally Posted by Islander

"...See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello...!

Please wear a WinnFABS shirt all the time, so I can someday introduce myself and thank you for your efforts.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...the majority of boaters never read up or were even aware of such a temporary limit.

You?...can speak to what the majority of boaters read?

It's A FACT that it appeared in the state's largest newspaper before The Survey. Please add that biggie to the seven other major errors I accounted for in the Survey.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...If you want to wave that as evidence that skewed the results please go for it. It actually helps the cause because you are concurring that the data itself was correct..."

I am? I wrote that? I'm concurring? Where are all these words coming from?

Even an Opponent agrees that the results were skewed: how 'bout we wave this one that also challenges The Survey's credibility?

"...the obvious visual deterrant of the MP boats in the first place which would probably slow someone down anyhow..."

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...That being the case good luck proving a newspaper article was responsible for making thousands of boaters instantly compliant with temporary speed laws..."

Thousands? Nobody made round-trips for several weeks? No Jet-Skis?

Hundreds of readings—maybe.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...Going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed..."

I have the daily benefit (and advantage) of paralleling a major boating mecca on a highway where the speed limit is 45. The vast majority of boaters below these bridges aren't going near that fast; however, the boaters that are exceeding the speed of all these trucks and cars on those bridges are a clear and present danger to everyone—and everything—on the waters below.

Originally Posted by tis

"...Let's just hope the house members have some common sense and realize a speed limit is just another law that isn't going to make any difference..."

For a moment, think of the burning of tobacco in restaurants.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...We will argue how misguided this law is and how the proponents have unsavory motives..."

Lake Winnipesaukee is not the only locale dealing with inappropriate watercraft. Between the four surfers in this videotape—and the one vessel with an engine—you'd be in support of the Jet-Ski?

[Skip]

Took some digging but Evenstar is correct, it can be very dangerous to kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Way back in 1983, an excerpt from "The Sea Canoeist":

"...Last fall was another story. There have been two deaths and three or four close calls reported. On October 29, 1983, Brian Insley died on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. The cause of death listed was drowning (water was found in the lungs). Most certainly the real cause was hypothermia due to the 38 to 40 degree water in the lake. Most hypothermia victims "drown" if they lose consciousness while in the water. Brian was an intermediate level paddler who could Eskimo roll but had never practiced it with the paddle he designed and was using. We will never know exactly what happened as he was paddling alone. One long-time resident on the lake described the weather as the second biggest windstorm in 30 years. Brian's life jackets were at home (he found them uncomfortable and had just ordered a new one). He had little or no flotation in the kayak, which was found with only a foot or so of one end exposed above the surface. He apparently had no flares or other emergency locating devices. Brian was an excellent swimmer and from the locations of the body and the kayak it appears that he swam about one half mile, which is remarkable in 400 water. Although Brian was capable of a deep water self-rescue. the lack of flotation in his boat probably precluded that. A few weeks previously he had paddled in far milder winds and waves and told a companion that they were the roughest conditions he had ever kayaked in. It appears Brian used extremely poor judgment to go out apparently far from shore, in a big storm, on a cold lake without even the most basic preparations necessary for a short paddle on a warm summer day in a group. Since the autopsy showed a blood alcohol level of 0.12 (0.05 is considered impaired, and 0.10 is legally intoxicated in Washington State), it appears that the alcohol contributed to his poor judgment. Brian was using an Escape, a fairly stable fibreglass kayak..."

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Skip

Took some digging but Evenstar is correct, it can be very dangerous to kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Way back in 1983, an excerpt from "The Sea Canoeist":

"...Last fall was another story. There have been two deaths and three or four close calls reported. On October 29, 1983, Brian Insley died on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. The cause of death listed was drowning (water was found in the lungs). Most certainly the real cause was hypothermia due to the 38 to 40 degree water in the lake. Most hypothermia victims "drown" if they lose consciousness while in the water. Brian was an intermediate level paddler who could Eskimo roll but had never practiced it with the paddle he designed and was using. We will never know exactly what happened as he was paddling alone. One long-time resident on the lake described the weather as the second biggest windstorm in 30 years. Brian's life jackets were at home (he found them uncomfortable and had just ordered a new one). He had little or no flotation in the kayak, which was found with only a foot or so of one end exposed above the surface. He apparently had no flares or other emergency locating devices. Brian was an excellent swimmer and from the locations of the body and the kayak it appears that he swam about one half mile, which is remarkable in 400 water. Although Brian was capable of a deep water self-rescue. the lack of flotation in his boat probably precluded that. A few weeks previously he had paddled in far milder winds and waves and told a companion that they were the roughest conditions he had ever kayaked in. It appears Brian used extremely poor judgment to go out apparently far from shore, in a big storm, on a cold lake without even the most basic preparations necessary for a short paddle on a warm summer day in a group. Since the autopsy showed a blood alcohol level of 0.12 (0.05 is considered impaired, and 0.10 is legally intoxicated in Washington State), it appears that the alcohol contributed to his poor judgment. Brian was using an Escape, a fairly stable fibreglass kayak..."

Too bad there wasn't a speed limit...this man's life could have been saved.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Too bad there wasn't a speed limit...this man's life could have been saved.

I guess that's funny to some.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Islander

I guess that's funny to some.

Only someone without a ♥ would think so....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Too bad there wasn't a speed limit...this man's life could have been saved.

You people are really pathetic!

First Skip digs up something that happened 25 years ago, which has nothing at all to do with the speed limit. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, other than to use this tragedy to poke fun at me.

And then KonaChick tries to make a joke out of someone's death.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Look, people make mistakes all the time and some pay the ultimate price for a mistake. But at least his mistake wasn't the cause of an innocent person being killed.

I know all about hypothermia. My collegiate sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. But we all dress for the cold temperatures. And I kayak in northern NH from mid April to mid Nov, but I have the proper gear for doing so. And I don't drink. And I wear a PFD. And my kayak has sealed flotation chambers. And I can do self rescues.

I do everything I can to be safe out there. But I can't protect myself from someone who is going too fast to notice me. Which is why I'm fighting for a speed limit - because I don't want to become a statistic.

Is there nothing that you will not stoop to? And my posts are the ones being moderated!!! I don't even think I want to be part of a forum like this one anymore.

You are not the type of people that I even want to associate with.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You people are really pathetic!

First Skip digs up something that happened 25 years ago, which has nothing at all to do with the speed limit. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, other than to use this tragedy to poke fun at me.

And then KonaChick tries to make a joke out of someone's death.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Look, people make mistakes all the time and some pay the ultimate price for a mistake. But at least his mistake wasn't the cause of an innocent person being killed.

I know all about hypothermia. My collegiate sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. But we all dress for the cold temperatures. And I kayak in northern NH from mid April to mid Nov, but I have the proper gear for doing so. And I don't drink. And I wear a PFD. And my kayak has sealed flotation chambers. And I can do self rescues.

I do everything I can to be safe out there. But I can't protect myself from someone who is going too fast to notice me. Which is why I'm fighting for a speed limit - because I don't want to become a statistic.

Is there nothing that you will not stoop to? And my posts are the ones being moderated!!! I don't even think I want to be part of a forum like this one anymore.

You are not the type of people that I even want to associate with.

I'm not trying to make a joke of anyone's death but simply pointing out that a speed limit would not have made a difference in this man's death, sorry to say. I used the "rolling my eyes" smilie to simply convey that a speed limit would not have helped this man. This man died from his own foolish choices. Let's end the comments about joking about this man's death as that was not my intention. Thank you!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And my posts are the ones being moderated!!! I don't even think I want to be part of a forum like this one anymore.

You are not the type of people that I even want to associate with.

This Forum believes in freedom of choice; so, adios...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
So in the spirit of compromise, you are will to accept what the opposition has wanted all along. This is the kind of "compromise" that will give you 45/25 everywhere.

For a second I thought you might be talking real compromise, like 45/25 except in the broads.

As I wrote:

In the spirit of compromise, and this is mainly directed toward any Senator or State Rep that happens to be lurking. I would propose the following that would solve most of the problems raised by the folks truely concerned about safety (none of the issues raised by people who want performance boats gone) and at the same time I believe it would be acceptable to many of the folks that oppose HB847.

Substitute the language in HB 847 with the USCG Navigation Rule 6.

[Airwaves]

Since I am a moderated contributor, I can not edit a post so that even now, prior to my post getting on line, when I have discovered I made an error, I can't fix it without a separate post.

This is the separate post.

In my previous post I said, that Bear Islander accused the Marine Patrol of fudging data. I was wrong, those were not the words he used. The following is his quote;

"Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study".

BI you have my apologies. The rest of my post stands as written.
AW